"Housing Market Slumps"

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Nobody implied all of it went into housing.

why not post how much of the £77 billion in 2013/14 by your reckoning went in to housing.
Why not post how large a sum you think gifts are annually.

There isn't much value to someone saying 'oh no that doesn't sound right'

About as much value as saying it a large proportion we just don't know.

We can all put forward anecdotal evidence but that means very little.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

You can't say that I lived in my first house 9 years but I have lived in my present house 30 years and do not intend to move for some time if at all. People typical stay in thier first home less time than thier second home and stay in thier final home longest.

Yes that is a reasonable point the transaction frequency may very depending on the type or size of property. That would only be possible if the ratio of larger homes was higher than small starter properties. We could try to look that up but I don't think it will change the conclusion which is that most homeowners only buy two homes in their lifetime.

you will by your own reckoning have purchased 2 homes in your adult life. Pretty much what I suggested would be the median likelihood looking at transaction data.

Also we have not considered the fact that many people move sidewards so this two homes purchased in a lifetime does not necessarily mean the second is bigger and better it could be a sideway movement in fact many of them will be

Simply put there is no housing ladder with many steps to climb up to a big fanatic property and then steps to downsize on retirement or I'll heath. For most people it is one purchase followed by a second step sidewards or in some cases upwards

economic

lisyloo wrote: »

Agree.





Having accepted the above, that sounds really odd to me.
First time properties are often flats or at most 2 bed rabbit hutches, which might be ok for a baby.
Most people up size around the time (preferably before) they start or expand a family.
Some don't downsize later in llfe if they have a modest home (say 3 -bed semi).
Those with large homes that they don't need anymore might downsize or might buy two smaller homes.
Those who then experience disability sometimes buy bungalows or move into sheltered type accommodation that suit their needs.


How can (these days) people afford family accommodation as home number 1?
and why would you want to upsize when your thoughts turn to retirement?

they can afford it via gifts! don't underestimate how much gifts have been given.


I know many people in their 50s-60s worked their entire lives and have a decent stash to gift to their offspring. im talking a few hundred k. it may not be the average thing to happen, but its enough to cause prices to rise! these are people with average jobs as well. non technical/specialist and no degree required.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Yes that is a reasonable point the transaction frequency may very depending on the type or size of property. That would only be possible if the ratio of larger homes was higher than small starter properties. We could try to look that up but I don't think it will change the conclusion which is that most homeowners only buy two homes in their lifetime.

you will by your own reckoning have purchased 2 homes in your adult life. Pretty much what I suggested would be the median likelihood looking at transaction data.

Also we have not considered the fact that many people move sidewards so this two homes purchased in a lifetime does not necessarily mean the second is bigger and better it could be a sideway movement in fact many of them will be

Simply put there is no housing ladder with many steps to climb up to a big fanatic property and then steps to downsize on retirement or I'll heath. For most people it is one purchase followed by a second step sidewards or in some cases upwards

agree. I am on my second home after 2 years at my previous place. im not looking to move anytime soon. however depending on finances I will probably make one last move to my forever home hopefully in my 40s, this would be a upsize for sure.


in fact I also know a friend whose parents are doctors who recently upsized from an average house to a 1.5m house with swimming pool. parents and son and wife live there. they kept previous house as a rental but they upsized putting their son on the deeds to try avoid inheritance taxes.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

About as much value as saying it a large proportion we just don't know.

We can all put forward anecdotal evidence but that means very little.

Saying it's a large number is of a lot more value than saying nothing which is your position.

And I didn't just say its just a large number I found and posted the actual data. Data that clearly shows a huge £77 billion for 2013/14 and breaks it down by bands and number of such estates and even gives some indication of regional breakdown and contents of the estate and how many of such estates there are for each band.

Yet you still want to hold onto the losing position of yours, that since not everyone will get an inheritence and since many will be old at that point it must be a non economic consideration.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Saying it's a large number is of a lot more value than saying nothing which is your position.

And I didn't just say its just a large number I found and posted the actual data. Data that clearly shows a huge £77 billion for 2013/14 and breaks it down by bands and number of such estates and even gives some indication of regional breakdown and contents of the estate and how many of such estates there are for each band.

Yet you still want to hold onto the losing position of yours, that since not everyone will get an inheritence and since many will be old at that point it must be a non economic consideration.

I've never said nothing. As usual you ignore any points people put forward contradicting your position and take a blinkered look at the figures you present and read much more into them than you can.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

they can afford it via gifts! don't underestimate how much gifts have been given.


I know many people in their 50s-60s worked their entire lives and have a decent stash to gift to their offspring. im talking a few hundred k. it may not be the average thing to happen, but its enough to cause prices to rise! these are people with average jobs as well. non technical/specialist and no degree required.

You have to look outside your obviously very rich acquaintances. I would suspect I am more typical that you being a 60 year old living in a 4 bed detached in Surrey, I don’t have thousands stashed away to give to my kids and very few if any of my friends do.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

You have to look outside your obviously very rich acquaintances. I would suspect I am more typical that you being a 60 year old living in a 4 bed detached in Surrey, I don’t have thousands stashed away to give to my kids and very few if any of my friends do.

they are not rich. they are still middle class. they bought property in the 80s, paid mortgage off so most of the earnings go to savings. believe me there are many like this.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

they are not rich. they are still middle class. they bought property in the 80s, paid mortgage off so most of the earnings go to savings. believe me there are many like this.

I still think that's a very small minority.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

I still think that's a very small minority.

that maybe what u want to believe. however its not a small minority. its a pretty significant one. maybe not most. but its certainly enough to explain high property prices .


from what I have seen by posters on these threads just clarified how much inequality has risen. yes true there are more people who cant afford to buy. this is due to inequality. but theres certainly no easy answer to this. to try to fix the problem will almost without doubt mean socialism and that is a very dangerous path to take.